SPE 77576

Challenges in Pigging of Subsea Gas Flowlines

Subash Jayawardena, Leonid Dykhno and John Hudson, Shell Global Solutions US
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Pigging is a common operation in the oil and gas industry.
Pigging of flowlines is done with many objectives, including
cleaning deposits such as wax layers, removal of liquids and
flowline inspection. Pigging of gas flowlines in preparation for
a restart of production after a flowline shut-in can provide
challenges, as a significant amount of liquid may be left in the
flowline. This liquid, when removed using a pig, accumulates
upstream of the pig and moves towards the host facility during
the operation.
This paper describes the challenges of gas flowline pigging.
Gas flowline pigging initiated via a subsea pig launcher (in
case of a single flowline) or from the host facility (in case of a
dual or loop flowline) can be done using produced fluids. The
major concerns are the subsea pig launching and control of pig
movement, especially when pigging is done with produced
gas. The factors affecting the dynamics of the pig and the
produced fluids will be discussed. Special emphasis will be
placed on discussing the challenges associated with the subsea
pig launching required for single flowline pigging operations.
The implications of these control challenges are also
considered in light of pigging effectiveness.
Modeling experience of both single and dual (or loop)
flowline configuration will be presented. The problems
caused by hilly terrain as well as the steep risers leading to
host platforms in deepwater subsea gas flowline systems will
be discussed. Unless properly controlled, pigging of some gas
flowlines results in unacceptably high pig velocities.
Recommendations will be made on the optimization of subsea
flowline pigging.

Introduction
Importance
Pigging is a common operation in the oil and gas industry.
Pigging of flowlines is done with many objectives, including
cleaning deposits such as wax layers, removal of liquids and
flowline inspection. A pig is usually a solid or semi-solid
object propelled through the flowline in order to achieve these
objectives. Different types of pigs are available, and they
range from simple spheres used to sweep the liquid condensate
in a gas flowline to sophisticated, highly instrumented pigs
used for flowline inspection. Pigs are also used to separate
different fluids, when a single flowline is used to transport
multiple fluids.
Even at the conceptual design stage, the piggability of subsea
systems needs to be considered. This requires constant or
approximately constant flowline/riser/jumper internal
diameters. The expected pigging frequency determines the
frequency of replenishing the pigs to the subsea pig launcher,
and the economic impact of these should be considered. The
use of dual flowlines/flowloops increases the cost, but it also
reduces the uncertainties and operational problems associated
with the subsea pig launching. It also reduces the flowline
size needed during the peak production rates. The need of the
pigging should also be considered against the expected
problems such as wax deposition.
Problems in gas pigging of flowlines
Pigging of gas flowlines in preparation for a restart of
production after a flowline shut-in imposes challenges, as a
significant amount of liquid may be left in the flowline. This
liquid, when removed using a pig, accumulates upstream of
the pig and moves towards the host facility during the
operation. Accurate prediction of this liquid volume and the
amount of any associated solids is very important. Also
important is the control of the pig movement along the
flowline/riser. Prevention of the formation of solids/semi
solids such as hydrates during slugging is also a major flow
assurance concern.
Single flowline vs. flowloop/dual flowline cases
The emphasis of this paper will be on subsea gas flowline
systems. These systems can either be a single flowline or a
dual flowline/flowloop. A single flowline originates from a
subsea satellite wellhead and terminates at a host facility

S. JAYAWARDENA, L. DYKHNO AND J. HUDSON

(onshore or offshore). A dual flowline or a flowloop will

originate from the host facility, extend to one or more subsea
wells, and then return to the same host facility. For the
analysis of pigging operations, the dual flowline system and
the flowloop behaves similarly. Also, a gas export line
originating from a host and terminating at another receiving
facility will also behave as a flowloop, as far as pigging is
concerned. Therefore, we will study the two generic cases of
single flowline and flowloop in this work. The main
difference between the two cases are the need to use a subsea
pig launcher and the need to use produced fluids to propel the
pig from the wellhead to the receiving host facility (in the case
of a single flowline). The gas flowloop case uses a traditional
pig launcher, and will generally use export gas, pressure
boosted if necessary.
Pigging with produced fluids
Pigging with produced fluids is necessary in the case of a
single flowline. This causes major problems, both in
design/construction and in operations/maintenance. Subsea
pig launchers are necessary in this case, and the movement of
the pig must be controlled by controlling the production from
the subsea well(s). Many challenges associated with subsea
single flowlines are also shared by on-shore gas flowlines,
where the pig movement is controlled by the produced fluids.
Subsea pig launchers
Reliability of subsea pig launchers is critical, as it involves
long-term subsea storage of the pigs, and the high cost of
intervention. The pig launching mechanism could use the
methanol supply line pressure to propel the pig from the
storage location to the gas flowline such that the produced
fluids can move the pig to the host facility.
Deepwater systems, effect of the riser depth
In deepwater systems, usually where the water depth is more
than 1000 ft (300m), there are special challenges to the
pigging. The intervention cost is very large, and this dictates a
very high degree of reliability, especially for subsea
equipment with moving components. These systems usually
have a steep riser, which cause significant operational
problems in controlling the pig movement.
Hilly terrain gas flowlines
Hilly terrain also causes challenges in pigging, as the
condensate accumulates at the dips of the flowline. During
pigging, the liquid accumulated cause wide variations of
hydrostatic head, as the liquid moves from uphill flowline
segments to downhill segments. In these systems, the liquid
holdup prior to shut in can vary widely along the length of
the flowline.
Modeling Procedure
Transient simulations using a commercial transient flow
simulation program was performed. This program allowed the
tracking of a pig as it moved from the insertion point to the pig

SPE 77576

removal point. The following three different geometries

are used.
single flowline
dual flowline/flowloop
hilly terrain flowline
The single flowline case is an approximately 26-mile long
uphill gas flowline on the seabed, with a approximately 6000ft steel caternary riser (SCR). The flowline size is about 9
inch in internal diameter. The flowloop case is a closed loop
of gas flowlines, again with approximately 6000-ft SCR risers.
The flowline ID is about 7-inch. The gas is produced with
both risers, with one dry gas well flowing into one riser, and
two gas-condensate wells flowing to the other riser. The total
flowloop, excluding the risers, is about 30 miles long. The
hilly-terrain case was a 15-mile long, large diameter (42-inch)
flowline, with a large number of uphill and downhill flowline
segments. First 8.5-miles of this flowline is subsea, and the
rest is offshore. Elevation changes of the onshore flowline
segments vary up to 150-ft, with inclinations up to about 2o.
Flow conditions simulated
In the single flowline and the flowloop simulations, the
following sequence of events is modeled. The simulations
started with a steady state operation of the flowline, with the
wells flowing. This establishes the liquid holdup profile along
the flowline. Then, the producing wells are shut in. This is
followed by a few hours, in which the liquid settles out. Then,
the flowline outlet is aligned with the receiving separator/pig
catcher, and the pig is introduced. In the case of the gas
flowloop, pigging gas is injected up the host. In the case of
the single subsea flowline, the production from the well is
ramped up to the desired rate.
No flowline shut in and blowdown is included in the process
modeled. However, the conclusions from the simulation
results presented are also applicable for cases with flowline
shut in and blowdown. A qualitative description of the effect
of blowdown is discussed later.
Simulation of pigging operations
The pig is modeled as a short pig, with a small, nominal mass
of 22 lbs. The mass of the pig did not have a significant effect
on the pig movement, for the range considered (based on
different simulations with mass of pig between 0 to 220 lb).
The frictional forces of the pig were modeled such that a 25100 psi pressure drop is obtained across the pig. The pig is
introduced downstream of the pigging gas injection location or
the gas well. Pig location, pig velocity and the pigging gas
pressure are monitored throughout the transient simulations.
For the flowloop case simulated, the pigging gas supply rate
was limited by the topsides (host) operations/facilities.
Modeling Results
This section describes the results obtained from transient
simulations. Figures 1 through 4 are obtained from pigging

SPE 77576

CHALLENGES IN PIGGING OF SUBSEA GAS FLOWLINES

simulations of a gas flow loop. Figure 1 shows the pig velocity

predicted as a function of elapsed time. The pig is launched at
hour 24 of the simulation. This figure shows the pig velocity
for three cases, with three different pigging gas supply
pressures. A flow control valve is used to limit the pigging
gas flow rate to 20 MMSCFD. The three supply pressures
shown are selected to show the following three cases.
pig getting stuck at the riser base, due to insufficient
pigging gas supply pressure
pig spends an unnecessarily long time at the riser
base, because of the barely sufficient pigging gas
supply pressure
successful pigging with a sufficient pigging gas
supply pressure
These figures show the pig movement along the flowloop.
The pig velocity reaches very high values (in the case shown,
more than 50 ft/s) as the pig arrives the pig catcher.
A qualitative description of the different predicted parameters
is given below.
Pigging time
Prediction of the pigging time is very important, as it gives the
operators an estimate of the pig arrival time. Launching and
receiving the pig are two operations with a number of safety
concerns. Knowing when to expect the pig to arrive is
therefore extremely important. Also, knowing how different
parameters affect the pigging time allows the operators to
minimize the duration of the pigging process.
Pigging velocity
Average velocity during pigging directly affects the pigging
time. However, it is not necessarily inversely proportional, as
the pig velocity may undergo significant changes at locations
such as the riser base. A generally accepted pig velocity in the
flowline is between 3 to 5 mph. The pig velocity determines
the liquid removal rate, and efficiency of scraping deposits
such as wax and asphaltene layers. The forces on the subsea
and topsides equipment and pipe bends also limit the
pig velocity.
Pig arrival velocity
Pig arrival velocity is a major concern to the topsides
operations. The integrity of the piping system and the pig
catcher limits the maximum pig arrival velocity. In cases with
deepwater systems with risers of the order of a few thousand
feet in height, the pig arrival velocity can be very large. This
is caused by the condensate (liquid) column in the riser
imposing a large hydrostatic head on the pig. To move the pig
into the riser, the pressure upstream of the pig should be larger
than the pressure downstream of the pig (which is the sum of
hydrostatic head and the separator pressure). As the pig
moves up the riser, the liquid empties from the riser into the
separators, and the hydrostatic head due to liquid column
decreases. The expansion of gas in the flowline, upstream of
the pig, is small compared to the gas volume. Thus, the

pressure upstream of the pig remains almost unchanged. As

pressure downstream of the pig reduces, the net force on the
pig increases and the pig accelerates.
As the pig moves up the riser, its velocity increases. The
liquid column height continues to decrease, and the pig
accelerates further. This results in a very high pig velocity, as
it approaches the top of the riser.
The deep water system considered has a riser height of about
6000-ft. Lets consider the worst case where the riser gets
filled with liquid, as the pig approaches the riser base. Then,
the hydrostatic head is more than 2000 psi. Thus, the pig
upstream pressure needs to exceed the sum of the separator
pressure and this hydrostatic head for the pig to move up the
riser. When the pig reaches the top of the riser, the pressure
downstream of the pig drops almost to the separator pressure.
At this point, the pressure difference across the pig may be as
high as 2000 psi, and as a result, the pig accelerates to very
large velocities. Simulations predicted the pig arrival velocity
exceeding 70 ft/s, for some cases. The liquid downstream of
the pig also reaches this velocity. Such high pig arrival
velocities are clearly unacceptable, as the fast moving pig and
the liquid impose unacceptable levels of forces in the piping,
fittings and the pig catcher (receiver).
Pig arrival velocity control
A number of approaches were investigated to control the
excessive pig arrival velocity. Only a limited number of these
options appear to be viable. In this paper, a simple approach
to effectively control the pig arrival velocity is described.
This method has been proposed for the implementation in both
of the subsea systems analyzed (single subsea gas flowline and
the gas flowloop).
The cause for the excessive pig arrival velocity is the very
large differential pressure across the pig. This pressure
difference increases as the pig approaches the host facility. To
reduce the pig velocity, we need to reduce this pressure
difference. This can either be done by reducing the pig
upstream pressure or by increasing the pig downstream
pressure.
Reducing the pig upstream pressure can be done only in the
case of a flowloop or a export gas flowline. Reducing the pig
upstream pressure requires precise timing, as a premature
decrease in pig upstream pressure will cause the pig to be
come stuck in the riser. Also, the pig location needs to be
known precisely. The rapid depressurization needed for this
approach may require flaring a large amount of gas from the
flowline.
This approach involves a large number of
operations, and failure to reduce the pressure in time results in
unacceptable pig arrival velocities. Thus, this approach is
not recommended.
Alternatively, we can increase the pig downstream pressure.
One approach for that is to manipulate the separator pressure,
but that also requires a prior knowledge of the pig location.
Also, failure to increase the pressure in a timely manner
results in unacceptable pig arrival velocities. A failure of the
separator make up gas supply needed for this can cause such
problems. Thus, this approach is also not recommended.

S. JAYAWARDENA, L. DYKHNO AND J. HUDSON

We identified a method by which the liquid column in the riser

(upstream of the pig) could be used to limit the pig arrival
velocity. As the pig accelerates the liquid downstream of the
pig also accelerates. By strategically placing a small orifice
valve, and flowing this fast moving liquid through that valve,
we can increase the pressure downstream of the pig by a
significant amount. The valve location and the size are
optimized to minimize any adverse effects on the pigging
time, while maintaining the maximum allowable pig
arrival velocity.
This approach has the following advantages.
This is a completely passive approach, not requiring
any field measurements or controllers.
Apart from the initial setup at the start of the pigging
process, operator interventions are not required.
Minimal impact on pigging time, when optimized.
No moving parts, and hence increased reliability.
Figure 2 shows the pig velocity for the same pigging gas
supply pressures as figure 1(with the 20 MMSCFD limit),
with the proposed method to control the pig arrival velocity.
It can be seen that the pig arrival velocity is now controlled
well within the allowable limits. Only a small increase in
pigging time is predicted. Figure 3 shows the location of the
pig as a function of time. The pig is inserted at the host
facility, and it travels about 32 miles (168000 ft) before it
returns to the pig catcher at the same host. This figure shows
that at the low pigging gas supply pressure, the pig gets stuck
at a location about 20000 ft away from the pig catcher. The
riser is only about 7500 ft in arc length. Thus, the pig gets
stuck in the upward flowline well away from the riser base.
When an intermediate pressure is used, pig gets stuck about
10000 ft from the pig catcher, and after the liquid settles, it
moves again. A slight increase in the gas supply pressure
reduces the pigging time considerably.
Figure 4 shows the pressure at the inlet of the flowloop. This
pressure is downstream of the flow control valve used to limit
the flow rate to the given 20 MMSCFD maximum. This
pressure is what is needed to propel the pig. When the supply
pressure is barely sufficient, the pig is stuck in the flowline,
before the riser base. The liquid downstream of the pig has
entrained gas. As this entrained gas bubbles rise to the riser,
the liquid flows into the nearly horizontal flowline. This
increased the time a pig spends in the flowline prior to
entering the riser. Thus, this is not the optimum pigging gas
supply pressure.
Figure 5 shows the pressure at the pig catcher. As the pig
approach the host facility, liquid starts to move from the riser
to the separator, through the small-orifice valve. As the liquid
flow rate increases, the pressure drop across the valve
increases. Thus, the pig catcher pressure (still downstream of
the pig) increases, and the pressure drop across the pig

SPE 77576

decreases. Thus, the pig does not accelerate to unacceptable

velocities.
Effect of separator pressure
Separator pressure has a large impact on the pigging time
requirements. When constrained by the availability of pigging
gas supply rate, reducing the separator pressure can increase
pig velocity. When the pigging of a single gas flowline is
done using the production from a well, the separator pressure
can be used to adjust the pig velocity in the flowline to meet
the often-conflicting demands on the production rate during
well ramp up. Increasing the separator pressure decreases the
pig velocity and vice versa. [see Dykhno et al. 2002].
Separator pressure is usually not gradually adjustable. Only
when there is a train of high, intermediate and low pressure
separators, pig catcher outlet can be aligned with the desired
separator to control the back pressure.
Effect of leakage around the pig
The simulations presented here assumed no leakage around
the pig. A number of simulations were made with a specified
leakage around the pig. Increasing leakage around the pig
results in a lower average pig velocity, a lower pig arrival
velocity and an increased pigging time. The pigging gas
supply pressure requirement increases with increased leakage.
Effect of liquid upstream of the pig
Presence of a long liquid column upstream of the pig is
beneficial, as it reduces the pig acceleration. This becomes
significant in controlling pig movement in horizontal or nearly
horizontal flowlines segments.
Special considerations for deepwater subsea flowlines
The following are some important factor to be considered in
the pigging operation.
Presence of any wax/asphaltine deposits, which may
cause a pig to stick. This requires consultation with
the wax/chemical systems engineering experts before
pigging.
Can export gas /booster compressors provide the
necessary pressure and gas flow rates?
In a single flowline case, does the wells(s) produce
enough flow to move the pig through the
flowline/riser.
Some special considerations for subsea pig launchers are
listed below
Reliability
Pig integrity and robustness if application involves
long term storage subsea;
Design and feasibility of equipment and pigs for wax
control applications, including the ability to conduct
progressive pigging;
Maintaining control of a pig being propelled by
multiphase production fluids, particularly with

SPE 77576

CHALLENGES IN PIGGING OF SUBSEA GAS FLOWLINES

respect to the risers and topsides on boarding

facilities.
Differences between single flowline case and flowloop case
As described before, the main differences between the single
flowline case and flowloop case are as follows: Subsea single
flowlines require a subsea pig launcher, and the ability to
intervene from both sides of the flowline is very limited. This
requires more reliable equipments and robust operating
procedures.
In the case of a single flowline, the ability of the produced
fluids to move the pig and any liquid accumulated downstream
of the pig to the host facility should also be considered. This
includes reduced reservoir pressure in the late life conditions.
Hilly terrain - single flowline case
Simulation results from a subsea-offshore hilly terrain gas
flowline are summarized here. The simulations were done for
a pigging operation using produced gas from a subsea well.
The flowline geometry is as follows: The first 8.5-mile long
subsea flowline was mostly uphill, and the last 4 miles of the
subsea flowline showed marked undulations. Although the
slope changes are clearly visible, there were no long flowline
segments with a nearly constant slope. The overall trend was
uphill. The remaining 5-mile long on-shore flowline was on a
rough hilly terrain, with long segments with both uphill and
downhill slopes. These segments had elevation changes om
the order of 150 ft. These flowline segments have inclinations
up to 2o. There was a marked change in the flowline slope
after about 3-miles.
Simulation results show a pig velocity of about 7 ft/s, for the
selected well production rate. The pig velocity reduced and
regained at the first major change in the slope after about 3
miles. The pig velocity showed large variations when the pig
is the subsea flowline with marked undulations. Predicted pig
velocity fluctuated between 1.5 ft/s and 12 ft/s. Magnitude of
the pig velocity fluctuations increased after the pig reached the
on shore flowline. Peak pig velocities exceeding 30 ft/s, were
predicted and the pig became stagnant for many short time
intervals. However, the predicted pig location at different
simulation times indicates that the average pig velocity is
about 5 mph, and there were no long time intervals where the
pig was stationary. This is consistent with the fact that this
system does not have a tall subsea riser. At the end of these
pigging simulations, about 800 bbl of liquid was collected.
The liquid volume collected by pigging after production at a
low rate depends heavily on the pigging frequency. That
suggests the time required for the liquid content in the
flowline to build up to steady state value is larger than the
pigging intervals used. However, at higher production rates,
the liquid volume collected during pigging becomes smaller,
and becomes independent of the pigging frequency.
Flow Assurance Issues
Prevention of flowline blockage by a hydrate plug formation is
one of the major flow assurance issues associated with the

pigging operation. As the liquid in the flowline accumulates

in the riser, the pressure at the riser base increases. If that
liquid has produced or condensed water, then there is a
potential for hydrates to form. There is a potential risk for
hydrate plug formation, which will block the flowline. For the
cases analyzed and presented here, the produced fluids are
continuously inhibited, as the gas flowlines are uninsulated. If
sufficiently inhibited to prevent hydrate formation at the
pigging gas supply pressure, then there is no additional need
for further inhibition. This is not the case during pigging of
insulated gas flowlines. In these cases, the thermal energy is
preserved during steady state operations to remain outside the
hydrate region, and the produced fluids are not inhibited for
hydrate prevention (Hudson, et al., 2000). These produced
fluids, if untreated, can cause a hydrate plug during pigging
operations, provided the fluids cool sufficiently. Adding an
inhibitor such as methanol may be required under those
conditions, for successful pigging of the gas flowlines.
Blowdown of the flowline prior to pigging reduces the
pressure and the amount of liquid in the flowline. Both of
these are beneficial, as they reduce the maximum pressure
requirements of the pigging gas. However, blowdown
processes take time, and in some cases, it may require the
flowline be re-pressurized after the pigging before restarting
the wells. Thus, flowline shut in and blowdown may not be
the optimal procedure before pigging.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Pigging gas rate or the production rate from the well should be
used to control the pig velocity, to be within the desired range.
The desired range is determined by factors such as the purpose
of the pigging operation, pressure and force ratings of the
flowline and fittings.
The minimum pigging gas supply pressure, which allows the
pig to move into the riser, is not the optimum pressure. A
small increase in pigging gas supply pressure may reduce the
pigging time significantly.
When possible, the separator pressure could be used to control
the average pig velocity maximize the pigging effectiveness,
while satisfying other constraints affecting pigging gas or well
productions rates.
Pig arrival velocity may increase to very large values,
especially when the riser depth is large, and the liquid content
in the flowline is high. Pig arrival velocity can be controlled
by placing a small orifice valve (with a fixed opening). This
approach is robust, inexpensive and does not require operator
intervention.
References
Hudson, J.D., L.A. Dykhno, S.E. Lorimer, W. Schoppa, and R.J.
Wilkens Flow Assurance for Subsea Wells, OTC 11968,
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2000.

S. JAYAWARDENA, L. DYKHNO AND J. HUDSON

Pigging of gas flowloop - with pig arrival velocity control

L. A. Dykhno, J.D. Hudson, J.A. Harris, and M.R. Seay, Modeling

of Pigging with Production Fluids in a Single Flowline OTC
14014, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 2002

Pigging of gas flowloop - with out pig arrival velocity control

60

50

40

pig velocity [mph]

180000

160000

pig location - length from pig catcher [ft]

Figures

SPE 77576

140000

120000

100000
controlled,
2500 psi
80000
controlled,
3000 psi

60000

40000

controlled,
3200 psi

30

20

uncontrolled,
2500 psi

20000

uncontrolled,
3000 psi

0
0

uncontrolled,
3200 psi

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

20

30

40

50

60

70

time [hrs]

Figure 3. Pig location during pigging. Pig travels 32 miles (168000 ft)
along the flowloop, from the pig launcher to pig catcher.

0
0

10

70

-10
time [hrs]

Figure 1. Pig velocity during pigging. Pig inserted at hour 24. Pig
movement is from end of flowline model to the beginning of flowline
model. Effect of pigging gas supply pressure.

Pigging of gas flowloop - with pig arrival velocity control

3500

pigging gas supply pressure [psia]

3000

Pigging of gas flowloop - with pig arrival velocity control

6

2500

2000
controlled,
2500 psi
1500
controlled,
3000 psi
1000

pig velocity [mph]

controlled,
3200 psi
500

controlled,
2500 psi

0
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

-1

-2

50

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time [hrs]
controlled,
3000 psi

controlled,
3200 psi

Figure 4. Pigging gas supply pressure requirement. With the pig velocity
control. Gas supply rate limited to 20 MMSCFD.

-3

-4
time [hrs]

Pigging of gas flowloop - with pig arrival velocity control

3500

Figure 2. Pig velocity during pigging. Similar to figure 1, except a

strategically placed valve is used to control the pig arrival velocity.

3000

pig catcher pressure [psia]

2500

2000
controlled,
2500 psi
1500
controlled,
3000 psi
1000
controlled,
3200 psi
500

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time [hrs]

Figure 5. Pressure at the pig catcher. Pressure increases as the liquid

starts to flow through the small orifice valve.